Obama looking for 'whose ass to kick'
Offline http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/07/gulf.oil.obama/index.html?hpt=T1
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama bluntly defended his administration's response to the undersea gusher fouling the Gulf of Mexico on Monday, telling an interviewer he has met with experts to learn "whose ass to kick."
"I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf," Obama told NBC's "Today" show in an interview scheduled to air Tuesday. "A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be."
A variety of critics have accused Obama of being too cerebral in his reaction to the undersea gusher now fouling the Gulf of Mexico, of failing to put the full force of the administration and of putting too much trust in oil company BP. But Obama told NBC his deliberations have been more than academic.
"I don't sit around talking to experts because this is a college seminar," Obama continued. "We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."
The disaster was uncorked by an explosion aboard the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon on April 20 that killed 11 workers. The rig sank two days later, and estimates of the amount of oil pouring into the gulf from the undersea blowout grew rapidly in the following week.
Obama made a May 2 visit to the Coast Guard command center in Venice, Louisiana, warning during a rain-spattered news conference that the problem may take "many days" to solve. The Coast Guard and the Department of the Interior, which oversees offshore oil drilling, were already heavily involved with well owner BP in trying to corral the leak.
But by then, conservative commentators -- some of whom had defended the Bush administration's lackluster response to 2005's Hurricane Katrina -- were billing the disaster "Obama's Katrina," and complaints about the pace and the amount of muscle the White House has put behind the cleanup have come from a handful of Democrats as well.
- Login to post comments
Signature ? How ?
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
Couldn't have said it better myself, really.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
More or less, this comic seems to be right. Also, large bodies of legislators sure are terrible at decision making. Something about spending other people's money on other people results in retarded expenditures. Well, that, and plain ol' acting in bad faith.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Obama is actually a fairly good president... or even "the best president ever", according to Vastet...
...if you aren't a resident of the US.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Doesn't matter what country you live in.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about, but hey, blanket statements are a good clean laugh either way.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Talk to the mirror much?
My statement stands as inarguable fact. Your pathetic attempts to suggest otherwise amuse me.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Hasn't it dawned on anyone yet...especially President Obama... that BP is incapable of fixing this?... You can posture all you want5...kick whosever ass you want.... throw whoever you want in jail....
The bottom line is that the gulf is still gushing oil... and the U.S. military with all of their resources are not the one trying to fix this...
Fix the fucking hole... *THEN* point fingers...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
Could we have something that vaguely resembles a reality check here? It doesn't matter which party you belong to, how much you want to change how the government is run, or what day of the week it is. Any large nation has a bureaucracy that is massive and consequently has a lot of inertia. This is good news and bad news. The good news is some jerk from the party in opposition to yours can not get in there and change things in a week or two. The bad news is that some jerk from your own party can not get in there and change things in a week or two.
Small changes over time make big changes in the bureaucracy and in the society. I had and have no illusions that anyone could become president and change the entire system in 4 years or 8 years. Change some things, yes. Change it all, no. And the changes will take time to have an impact. If anyone wants the government to become more progressive, the electorate will need to vote in progressive candidates for the next 10-20 years. Count. Number of Republican presidents since 1950. Number of Democratic presidents since 1950. Take hope or despair depending on your personal viewpoint. Realize you will have to work towards the system you hope to have and it will be a never ending journey. Or move somewhere were it is closer to your ideal. Choices, grasshopper.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
stating opinion as fact=fail
(apparently) not having anything of substance to support one's arguements=double fail
(again, apparent) unwillingness to debate one's own position= epic fail
giving someone much appropos because of one isolated deed (verbal condemnation of a nation Vastet doesn't like)= wtf?!
Obama seems great to the international leftist politicians and left-leaning nations that he goes out of his way to impress.
To the people actually living under his governance, he's Dubya jr and a huge shit sandwich that everyone is getting tired of nibbling on. (including members of his own party)
But as long as he has condemned one nation that a Certain Canadian doesn't like, he "is the greatest US president in US history" - which must be why his approval ratings are so high.
Rational.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Stating fact is opinion = fail.
Hypocrite = Epic fail.
Multiple hypocrisy = Legendary fail.
Failing to recognise the significance of tying Israel into a no-nuke policy in the Middle East = Words do not describe the total and absolute failure you are the poster boy for. Taking lessons from EXC are you?
So what? You JUST proved he was the best president of the millennium, even for Americans. I suspect that the more you post, the more you'll prove me right.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
edit; waste of time.
The best politician is either a right wing atheist or a left wing theist
Kapkao to president!!!!!!